From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" Subject: Re: Inlined functions in perf report Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:20:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20161221102035.GA31703@sesse.net> References: <20161220115954.GA35897@sesse.net> <20161221095823.GA19249@sesse.net> <8193556.VWj3dM7HSI@milian-kdab2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8193556.VWj3dM7HSI@milian-kdab2> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Milian Wolff Cc: "Jin, Yao" , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa , "Liang, Kan" List-Id: linux-perf-users.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:09:42AM +0100, Milian Wolff wrote: > Just to check - did you really compile your code with frame pointers? By > default, that is not the case, and the above will try to do frame pointer > unwinding which will then fail. Put differently - do you any stack frames at > all? Can you try `perf record --call-graph dwarf` instead? Of course, make > sure you compile your code with `-g -O2` or similar. I don't specifically use -fno-omit-frame-pointer, no. But the normal stack unwinding works just fine with mainline perf nevertheless; is this expected? /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: https://www.sesse.net/